Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3 and the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 are two 8-core Haswell-EP server processors built for the same LGA 2011-3 platform, yet they are positioned differently by their operating characteristics. The database shows a clear pattern: the standard E5-2630 v3 wins every recorded benchmark, while the L-variant offers a substantially lower power envelope. The data indicates that the choice between these two parts is not about one being categorically superior, but about which constraint matters more: raw throughput or energy efficiency.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3. In multicore workloads, the standard part scores 873 in Cinebench R15, 3640 in R20, and 8668 in R23, while the L-variant scores 839, 3498, and 8330 respectively. This translates to a consistent performance advantage of approximately 3.9% for the standard chip in every multicore test, and a similar 3.8% to 4.1% edge in single-core tests. The E5-2630 v3 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 2507 compared to 2409 for the L-variant, and sits at the 49th percentile among all CPUs versus the 48th percentile for its low-power sibling.

For workloads where every bit of compute throughput matters, the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 is the clear pick. It maintains a lead in both single-threaded and multi-threaded scenarios, making it the better fit for general server duties, virtualization hosts, or rendering tasks that are not power-constrained. The L-variant, however, is the choice for systems where thermal output and energy consumption take priority over maximum performance. Its 55 watt TDP, compared to 85 watts for the standard part, represents a significant reduction in power draw. This makes the E5-2630L v3 suitable for dense server deployments, chassis with limited cooling capacity, or applications where the workload is light and the lower power ceiling is acceptable. The data does not show a scenario where the L-variant wins on performance, so its appeal rests entirely on its efficiency profile.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture. They are built on the Haswell microarchitecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, and are fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process node. The transistor count is identical at 2,600 million, and the die size is the same at 356 mm². The cache hierarchy is also unchanged: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 20 MB L3 cache. Both parts support DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and both support ECC memory. The PCIe implementation is identical as well: Gen 3 with 40 lanes available from the CPU.

The core and thread counts do not differ. Each processor has 8 cores and 16 threads. The architectural divergence lies in the clock speeds and the power envelope. The E5-2630 v3 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The E5-2630L v3 operates at a lower base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. This clock reduction is the mechanism that allows the L-variant to achieve its 55 watt TDP, a full 30 watts lower than the 85 watt TDP of the standard part. Both processors were released on the same date and are now end-of-life products. They share the same socket, Intel Socket 2011-3, and the same generation designation. The part numbers differ, with the L-variant identified as SR209 and the standard part as SR206.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 wins every multicore benchmark. It scores 873 in Cinebench R15, 3640 in R20, and 8668 in R23, while the E5-2630L v3 scores 839, 3498, and 8330 respectively. The standard part holds a lead of approximately 3.9% in each case.

Q: What is the main advantage of the Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3?

A: The L-variant has a TDP of 55 watts, which is 30 watts lower than the 85 watt TDP of the standard E5-2630 v3. This makes it better suited for power-constrained or thermally limited environments.

Q: Do these processors have different memory support?

A: No. Both support DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and both support ECC memory.

Q: Are the core counts the same?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 and the Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3 have 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2507, placing it at the 49th percentile. The Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3 has an average score of 2409, placing it at the 48th percentile.

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The E5-2630 v3 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The E5-2630L v3 has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors are nearly identical on paper, with the differences concentrated in a few key areas. The base clock differs, with the E5-2630 v3 running at 2.40 GHz and the E5-2630L v3 at 1.80 GHz. The boost clock also differs, at 3.20 GHz for the standard part and 2.90 GHz for the L-variant. The TDP is the most significant divergence: 85 watts for the E5-2630 v3 versus 55 watts for the E5-2630L v3. The launch MSRP differs as well, with the standard part listed at $667 and the L-variant at $612. The part numbers are distinct: SR206 for the E5-2630 v3 and SR209 for the E5-2630L v3.

All other recorded specifications are shared. Both have 8 cores and 16 threads. Both use the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors and a 356 mm² die size. Both have the same cache configuration: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. Both support DDR4 memory, quad-channel buses, 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. Both are unlocked for multiplier adjustment, meaning the multiplier is not locked for either. Both are end-of-life products released on the same date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the standard part scores 873 against 839 for the L-variant, a difference of 3.9%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar margin, 123 versus 118, a 4.1% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 3640 against 3498, again a 3.9% gap, and the single-core result is 513 against 493, also 3.9%. In Cinebench R23, the multicore scores are 8668 for the standard part and 8330 for the L-variant, a 3.9% difference, while the single-core scores are 1223 and 1176, a 3.8% gap.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across all six tests, the performance difference hovers near 4%, never exceeding 4.1% and never dropping below 3.8%. This uniformity suggests that the clock speed difference is the primary driver of the performance gap, rather than any architectural inefficiency. The E5-2630 v3's higher base and boost clocks translate directly into a steady advantage across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The E5-2630 v3 averages 2507, which places it just below the Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3, which averages 2511, a difference of 0.2%. It also sits close to the Intel Xeon E-2144G at 2514 and above the Intel Core i5-1155G7 at 2496. The E5-2630L v3 averages 2409, which is nearly tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4450U at 2413, a 0.1% difference, and the Intel Core i5-1038NG7 at 2398, a 0.5% difference. These rival comparisons show that both processors occupy a similar performance tier, with the standard part sitting marginally higher within that tier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 wins in every performance category recorded in the database. It is the faster part for single-threaded applications, as shown by its higher scores in all three Cinebench single-core tests. It is also the faster part for multi-threaded workloads, with consistent multicore wins across R15, R20, and R23. For users running CPU-intensive applications such as rendering, scientific computing, or heavy virtualization, the E5-2630 v3 provides a measurable, if modest, performance edge. Its higher average benchmark score of 2507 and its 49th percentile ranking make it the better choice when raw compute throughput is the goal.

The Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3 does not win any benchmark, but it wins on power efficiency. Its 55 watt TDP is significantly lower than the 85 watt TDP of the standard part. This makes it the appropriate choice for systems where thermal management is a constraint, such as high-density server racks, or where energy costs are a primary concern. The lower clock speeds, 1.80 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost, are the cost of this efficiency, and the benchmark data shows that cost is approximately 4% across the board. For workloads that are not continuously pegged at maximum load, the L-variant may deliver adequate performance while consuming considerably less power. The database does not provide power consumption measurements, but the TDP figures indicate a clear efficiency advantage for the L-variant. The choice comes down to whether the user prioritizes the performance lead of the E5-2630 v3 or the power envelope of the E5-2630L v3.